- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:02:37 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The Working Group just discussed `Naming of revision of CSS 2.1`, and agreed to the following resolutions: * `RESOLVED: Use the naming scheme proposed at bottom of https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2008` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael_> Topic: Naming of revision of CSS 2.1<br> <dael_> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2008<br> <dael_> tantek: Now that we have an agreed workflow for 2.1, gsnedders opened this last NOv as to what do we call it. 2.2 or 2.1 nth edition. There has been some back and forth. I can argue for either. Wrote a summary at the bottom.<br> <dael_> tantek: Based on that my proposal is go with CSS 2.2 nth edition.<br> <dael_> tantek: Major reason is 2.1 has been stable and unchanging for so many years that adding editions would not indicate we're applying these changes. We've also already published 2.2 WD so it'll always be there.<br> <dael_> fantasai: We can make the permalink repoint. We've done that before.<br> <dael_> florian: Not sure we have. I think we have both links serve same content.<br> <dael_> tantek: Regardless, we published and it's out there.<br> <dael_> tantek: So 2.2 nth edition. 2.2 2nd edition 2.2 3rd edition etc.<br> <dael_> florian: POint is URL stays the same.<br> <dael_> fantasai: Should always be CSS 2.<br> <dael_> fantasai: I think it's important to make sure it replaces this<br> <fantasai> Need to replace https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/<br> <dael_> florian: Unless you put in a dated URL any should link you to the latest 2.2<br> <dbaron> you mean like https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/ gives me the 1998 REC... ?<br> <dael_> fantasai: A lot of links point into that. Whatever we publish should replace that.<br> <dael_> tantek: Agree.<br> <dbaron> (I thought we fixed that at some point...)<br> <dael_> fantasai: I think having CSS2.1 point to CSS 2.2 is weird but if you want to.<br> <dael_> gsnedders: And we need to make sure that whoever approves is okay that /css21 points to /css22.<br> <dael_> dbaron: Sounds like the sort of thig we can convince plh to do.<br> <dael_> astearns: Do we change editions for only substantive changes?<br> <dael_> fantasai: Depends on process.<br> <dael_> tantek: Process doesn't say.<br> <dael_> gsnedders: I think every new ER has a new number.<br> <dael_> astearns: Okay.<br> <dael_> tantek: That's what I rpopose<br> <dael_> florian: Not a new short name<br> <dael_> fantasai: Short name stays CSS2.2<br> <fantasai> s/CSS2.2/CSS2/<br> <dael_> astearns: Obj to the naming scheme proposed at bottom of https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2008 ?<br> <dael_> astearns: [reads]<br> <dael_> gsnedders: how many people favored 22 over 21 that you spoke to.<br> <dael_> tantek: That was gathering, a lot of people weren't very strong.<br> <tantek> PROPOSED: Use CSS 2.2 for the next REC track revision of CSS 2.1, and then append "2nd edition", "3rd edition" etc. for subsequent Edited Recommendations.<br> <dael_> florian: I'm okay with either.<br> <tantek> (copy pasted from bottom of 2008)<br> <dael_> astearns: Shall we resolve?<br> <dael_> RESOLVED: Use the naming scheme proposed at bottom of https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2008<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2008#issuecomment-380857492 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2018 16:02:40 UTC